WHERE RACE AND THE LAW MEET
by Brando Simeo Starkey

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Uncle Tom: Race, Law & Culture

In my previous post I mentioned that I was writing a book. It's provisionally entitled Uncle Tom: Race, Law & Culture. Below is a basic sysnopsis of what I'm trying to prove throughout the book.

This book is devoted towards proving three points.First, we owe the law to Uncle Tom’s existence.The
first pejorative usage of Uncle Tom I
have unearthed dates back to 1900.It is
likely that Uncle Tom was used in the
final years of the nineteenth century, a period during which segregation and
disfranchisement was declared constitutional and the justice system gave silent
sanction to lynching.Times like these
convinced many blacks that group solidarity was a precondition to improving
their plight.Group cohesion was
necessary in order to change the law, reform legal institutions and elect
public officials, who, with few exceptions, essayed to ensure the maintenance
of white supremacy.Without racism,
codified by law, there is no Uncle Tom.Without laws and judicial interpretation
thereof which subordinated blacks to second class citizenship, blacks would not
have needed to create an epithet that was aimed at making sure no blacks
crossed the line and acted in a manner which hurt the group’s ability to reach
racial equality.

Second, knowing the various ways the law, the justice system
and national, state and local policymakers have either subjugated blacks or has
been unresponsive to blacks’ desire for true equality animates the black
community’s use of Uncle Tom. After examining how the law affects blacks
during a particular period, one can trace how blacks will use Uncle Tom as a weapon in an often
inadequate arsenal amassed to radically reform American society so that blacks
can feel as equal participants in American democracy.

Moreover, as the laws changed so too did the manner in which
blacks used Uncle Tom. Black
Americans’ issue with the law has changed throughout time as has the law
itself.As the law evolved, so too has
the manner in which Uncle Tom has been
used.Uncle Tom oftentimes is but a reflection of the legal character of a
particular period. Being devoted to integration would not have gotten one
called an Uncle Tom in 1940.In fact, not fighting for integration at the
time would have been deemed the opposite of what an Uncle Tom connotes.But in
the 1960s, black militants routinely lambasted integrationists as Uncle Toms.The change in the legality of segregation did
not lead to a change in blacks’ socioeconomic status and younger blacks began to
become frustrated with their integrationist leadership.Younger blacks averred that integrationists
were leading them astray and hence they were deemed Uncle Tom.Here, I’m
principally concerned with establishing how the use of Uncle Tom changes to mirror the changes in the law.

Third, I deal with the position advocated by many that
epithets used to mark racial treachery, particularly Uncle Tom, should no longer be used.Formal equality is the law of the land; overt
discrimination is no longer permitted.Yet, equality in results is obviously still yet out of reach.The very reason why Uncle Tom was first employed, to help realize equality, is still
extant.I argue, therefore, that in
light of these truths, Uncle Tom
still has a place in contemporary society.But, as in previous decades it should be used as a response to the legal
challenges blacks face.More than ever, Uncle Tom is now used as a catch-all
insult against blacks instead of a term that is meant to make a political and
social point.Uncle Tom should not be abandoned, but reformed.